Councillors have agreed to start the process that will lead to the demolition eight tower blocks – and said that people had already started to move out and into new homes.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet formally approved demolishing St James’ House, in Kemp Town, Nettleton Court and Dudeney Lodge, in Hollingdean, and five blocks at the top of Whitehawk.
The proposal was agreed in a meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Thursday 19 March) when Labour councillor Gill Williams paid tribute to the residents for their co-operation throughout the process.
She said that officials had knocked on every door to speak to residents to make sure that people understood what was happening.
Councillor Williams, the council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “It really can’t be underestimated how distressing and worrying it is to be uprooted from your home because this is what is happening.
“Even though it’s unavoidable, we have to just get through it better. I’ve witnessed first-hand how the residents are dealing with this.
“There is much sadness – there really is – because people have been there for a couple of generations. It’s so sad but there is also so much resilience and fortitude. It’s actually quite humbling.”
Fellow Labour councillor Alan Robins asked members to note the effects of the move on older people.
Councillor Robins said: “It might be for some of them that they will never return. Somebody of my age … if I had to move out of my home for 10 years, I’d be 80 if I ever returned.
“I think it was William Blake who said at seed time we learn, harvest we teach and winter we enjoy, which is an analogy of life, suggesting as you get older you take things easier.
“It must be a terrible strain for people who’ve been there all that while.”
The eight blocks of flats were made from concrete and built with “large panel systems” (LPS) which have stood for more than 50 years but fall short of modern safety standards.
Concerns came to light as a result of safety checks carried out after 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire, in London, in 2017.
A team of housing officials is currently being recruited to support hundreds of residents as they look for new homes.
The Labour leader of the council Bella Sankey said that she had attended community engagement events and heard residents’ mixed feelings.
Councillor Sankey said: “The sense of anxiety and uncertainty this situation brings is absolutely heard by us.
“We will continue as a council seeking to understand people’s concerns and to work with people to plan for the future.”
She said that the package being offered to the residents was a positive one.
People living in the blocks would be offered a home of the same size as the one that they had now, with the option to downsize should they wish.
All were being given the right to return to live in the replacement buildings once completed.
Leaseholders would have their flats bought back – and the council was running a pilot project to provide deposits for people using their “right to buy” option, with £400,000 allocated to cover 10 £40,000 grants.
The rehousing programme and proposed lease buybacks were expected to be covered by an existing budget of £7.5 million which was agreed last July.
The initial demolition orders are for seven years although Councillor Williams said that the process was expected to take five years.
Sadly will they miss their neighbours and chances are will be downsized as there maybe new tenants that also need housing.
Being allocated housing to suit your needs is a privilege not a right, downsizing from whar you don’t need means space for others. Should be enforced instead of allowing people to occupy homes they don’t fill. Bedroom tax solved nothing, just blocked other peoples needs, Government and Councils should double the rent for every bedroom in excess.
…… No doubt you live by that credo !
As happens I do, I have no need for empty rooms to pay rent and council tax on, same with my car, does everything I need at reasonable money, I’ve never understood peoples need for eternal costly spaces they pay rent on but never occupy. Social housing and rents are designed for the masses not private enterprise, if you need bigger empty spaces go buy them. Nothing to stop people going private but I don’t agree with people having 2-3 extra rooms at the taxpayers expense. Yes I live in one 44sqm, adequate for me and squeeze a couple of my kids in when they visit. Another point to clear, people living in buildings that they knew were coming down should possibly have made some preparations ,,,,,, 20 years ago when it started, the master plan is not changing but will be delayed like these plans usually are.
Chances are, Ali, that “People living in the blocks would be offered a home of the same size as the one that they had now, with the option to downsize should they wish.”
Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on chance. However, I do agree with Stan when it comes to social housing that pragmatism should play a part in the allocations. For the benefit of having a place at 30% of what you’d pay privately, you should have an appropriate occupation. Thinking of it another way, too, it makes life more affordable when you’re not paying the higher rents for a larger property.
Although…with the upheaval, I think the human thing to do is to allow like-for-like. Then, after some attrition, the council should up its tenancy check game – because that’s why under/over occupancy is allowed to happen.
Thought Brighton had a huge housing shortage. Where are these hundreds of spare homes that will be needed?
Transitional, not all at once but in stages to allow new builds to complete before moving people around. Also gives time and space for demolition in phases.
Benjamin You’re talking about “pragmatism” like this is just a numbers exercise, but these are people being forced out of homes they’ve lived in for decades. It’s not just about square footage or rent levels—it’s about community, stability, and not being uprooted late in life.
And the idea that people should accept tighter conditions because they’re paying less ignores why social housing exists in the first place. Managing occupancy is one thing, but using it to justify pushing people around—especially during something as disruptive as demolition—feels pretty detached from the reality residents are facing.
Your AI completely ignored my last paragraph. Again, for the 11th time, you shouldn’t rely on AI to write comments for you, because it often makes mistakes, and for the 11th time, this is yet another example of it. It’s also retreated into high concepts, which generally means it doesn’t actually have a point to make. You are better than this, James.
Benjamin This obsession with calling everything “AI” instead of actually engaging with the point is getting a bit tired. You’ve written a lot there
Starting to say more about you than me.
Perhaps you should get out in the sun today
You can’t engage with a flawed point, James. It’s fallacious. It’s tried because you’re not learning from it. So yes, it says a lot about me that I’m consistent and that I won’t let you get away with purely generated comments that are fundamentally flawed. Resorting to ad hominem doesn’t change this. You are better than this, James.
Benjamin
Calling something “AI-generated” doesn’t actually make it wrong—it just sidesteps the argument. If you think a point is flawed, then point out where it’s flawed instead of dismissing it outright.
And to be clear, nothing I said was about Community Payback being invalid in itself—just that it’s limited and not a broader solution. That’s not a fallacy, it’s a disagreement.
Did you manage to get out in the fresh air today down in hove ?